John Perry Barlow Tells Copyright Maximalists That They've Got The Fundamentals Wrong
from the good-for-him dept
A bunch of folks have been submitting the story about how John Perry Barlow went to the e-G8 event and got to sit on a panel with some copyright maximalists, and explained to them how they are arguing about the wrong thing:I may be one of very few people in this room who actually makes his living personally by creating what these gentlemen are pleased to call “intellectual property.” I don’t regard my expression as a form of property. Property is something that can be taken from me. If I don’t have it, somebody else does.He later added the key point, that everyone else who was on the panel weren't creators themselves, but were those who made their living off of creators, stating he wanted to focus on “incentivizing creativity by people who create things, and not large institutions who prey on them and have for years.”
Expression is not like that. The notion that expression is like that is entirely a consequence of taking a system of expression and transporting it around, which was necessary before there was the internet, which has the capacity to do this infinitely at almost no cost.
Of course, this left his fellow panelists stumbling around a bit to defend their positions.
Jim Gianopulos of 20th Century Fox shot back that “no one’s going to argue against free speech,” if “free speech” means that someone takes a video camera and makes a movie on any subject he or she wants. But when “speech” is defined as sharing copyrighted works?Of course, Barlow understands economics much better than the others on the panel. The problem is that these guys seem to think that the only way to make money is through greater protectionism and treating content as property that needs an artificial scarcity. The whole point of what Barlow was saying was that this is simply not true. It's a fundamental assumption these guys are making that is false.
“Speech has to be free but movies cost money,” he said, adding that he hears plenty about the need for new business models but doesn’t see any actual alternative business models that generate the cash to fund big-budget films.
Culture Minister Frédéric Mitterand took Barlow to task for his dramatic statements. “I do not share this apocalyptic vision of some dictatorship that will be creeping back through the internet into our lives to control our thoughts and the way in which we function,” he said. Some controls on the internet are eminently reasonable—we need “economic solutions to economic problems.”
The head of Universal Music France talked about just how much money was necessary to nurture new talent. DIdn’t Barlow understand economics?
I actually see this all the time in these debates and it's immensely frustrating. When people like myself and others talk about why copyright is not that important, and that there are all sorts of other ways to make money, we're always hit back with the "but it costs money to make this stuff!" Those who suck off the teat of the old system are so fundamentally wedded to the idea that you must have copyright to make money that they entirely miss the fact that we are talking about ways to make money. Their brains simply default to "no copyright = no money," and thus, to them the argument "but these things cost money to make" makes sense. But that's only true if they don't hear what we say, and don't realize that we are talking about ways to make money -- just without relying on copyright to do so.
Kudos to Barlow for pointing much of this out -- though, it doesn't appear that his points sunk in.
On a separate note, the article points out that other digital thought leaders and activists urged Barlow not to go to the e-G8, because of concerns about how it was set up as a way for governments and companies to come together to regulate the internet to protect old business models and to stomp out speech they don't like.
I have to point out that I think it's silly, dangerous and wrong to suggest folks like Barlow should not participate in these sorts of meetings. If anything, it's better that he and others go and make their voices heard. Otherwise, these people don't hear the other viewpoints, and they assume -- falsely -- that they're right and that everyone agrees with them.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, john perry barlow
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Just as often, they'll continue assuming they're right and that "who-let-him-in" is just some sort of possible dangerous outlier.
They'll assume that here as well. I'm guessing the maximalists are firing up their keyboards as we "speak," readying some sort of entitlement word dump and otherwise making angry noises at all of the "who-let-him/her-in" outliers that reside here in the Masnick Echo Chamber (patent pending).
"But if we can't make money the way we used to, we'll never be able to make any money."
Whatever.
AT&T used to make most of their money on landlines. Everything changed and yet they still make money. (Snark insert: they've just shifted their monopoly.) It's weird, but it's been known to happen. Your usual outlets get shut down but new opportunities open up.
Blockbuster used to make money renting videos. Now they don't because they thought that was used to work would always work and reacted years after it was apparent to others that the rental business needed to change drastically. That's your maximalist thinking. Hold onto a certain viewpoint until it bankrupts you. At that point, you're more than welcome to start pointing accusing fingers at everybody else (pirates!) for killing your dreams.
Sad thing is, Blockbuster didn't even need to compete with free. Netflix was charging money for their service. Red Box charges for their rentals. They had at least one leg up on most of these maximalists and yet, they still decided to do too little way too late.
Do you still want to sit around complaining that the world isn't fair? If you had parents, you've probably known this since age 5. Try to make what's working work for you. Stop trying to control all those things you can't. You're wasting time, and that's the most precious commodity you have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This argument again?
Waah Waah! It cost money to make business! Waaah! Gives us special privileges! Waaah!
It's ridiculous. There are a ton of more important businesses that cost lot of money to develop and maintain, and you don't see anyone give them a handout.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why are you trying to force everyone to work in the manner *you* think they should?
That's not right and your attitude will not succeed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That's it. The dinosaurs-R-us group makes its money off the back of those who are creative. And off the back of those who pay to purchase that creativity. That is, they screw both ends of the distribution -- the supply, and the consumer.
They call it "services". Yes specialized services like the well known hollywood accounting where a movie with over a billion dollars in revenue doesn't make any actual profit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Services: hollywood accounting so a movie with over a billion dollars in revenue is not profitable.
Opportunities: to screw both the artist and the consumer. Opportunities for legislators to get rich.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What you can expect. Let me summarize to save them the time:
* Everyone is a pirate. This is a pirate blog. Etc. Same old, same old.
* Change the subject. Introduce irrelevancies and red herrings.
* Name calling. Freetards. Pirates. Theft. etc., etc.
* I just don't see it. I just don't get it.
* Straw man arguments. Let me describe my ideal evil monster, and then watch me knock it down!
* Call for an analogy that involves illegal activity -- even though nobody else is talking about illegal activity. (It's a higher level implied form of name calling.)
What you won't hear:
* Actual substantive debate about the subject.
* Reasoned arguments. Logical. Coherent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It is very important that you do not misrepresent the nature of this blog; it has repeatedly offered potential new revenue streams. People like myself write to these companies on a weekly basis to explain why, in our collective opinions, their attitude is wrong.
A refusal to acknowledge that there may be soemthing in our collective words means that they become increasingly less relevant, and are litigtating their way into obscurity.
MArk my words; there will be a reckoning and soon. And the men in suits will become either extinct or be taken off in the funny white coats.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
No. Nosiree. Can't allow digital downloads at a reasonable price -- that might hurt the sales of 25 cent round flat pieces of plastic and glossy cardboard.
Just like the 1970's vinyl records and home recording to cassette tapes -- can't have people listening to music in their cars, walkmans, etc. (Today substitute CD's, mp3 players, phones, cars, etc.)
The VCR is the biggest threat to recorded music. (Photocopier, radio, printing press, etc.)
Prediction: once they eventually are forced to embrace change and are making money (if that actually happens), then the next big innovation will be the biggest threat, and what they are resisting today will be the biggest moneymaker.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I believe this is part of the problem. They made enough money form the old systems, and are so closed to those making the laws that they actually can control where these laws go to an extent. I believe that is a rather large problem for the American public (and it appears foreign web site owners who registered a .com domain too).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Also
Even more to the point: You do not have a fundamental right to make money. If you can't make money from recordings, don't make recordings.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Barlow, labels and services
They didn't need to do this - their original contract with Warner in 1970 only covered a few albums and ran out decades ago. They did it because they thought it was a smart thing to do. They did it because they presumably don't see Warner as making money FROM them but rather making money FOR them.
While the Dead freely allowed fans to trade their concert recordings, they carefully guarded the intellectual property rights they needed to sell merchandise (not sure if this is copyright, trademark, or a mix of both). Barlow isn't telling the whole story. And musicians who might otherwise heed his advice should realize that those who know him best don't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Anyway, again, why are you so anti-choice? Why are you insisting other people must act the way *you* want them to act?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Actually, at this point, I'm pretty sure there is some relentless hatred from many of us who are tired of being screwed over and over again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Speak up!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Two internets
Then, there should be the internet for the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Seems like the successful artists are doing rather well.
So now is this the part where you say they're actually making too much money so it's ok to rip them off?
Which one is it?
Artists aren't getting paid or they're getting paid too much?
And who are you to go around making sweeping declarations about who gets paid what in a business you don't work in?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Also
If everyone could steal cars, would we stop having cars?
No, the government would step in and enforce the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Barlow, labels and services
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
For example, the major labels are so against even the very idea that there are other ways to distribute, sell and profit from music (or any other content) that they will come to a forum like this to fight the very suggestion of alternatives.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
That word does not mean what you think it means.
A monopoly menas that only one supplier can manufacture and distribute a product. Both copyright and patents work that way, thus they are monopolies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nobody here has a gun to artists heads.
It is the labels. They are so afraid of alternatives and choice that they come to a forum like this because it commits the sins of merely pointing out alternatives and pointing out the failures of the labels.
So who is anti-choice again?
Oh, yeah. The monopolists. Monopolists are always anti-choice.
Calling alternatives anti choice? Psychologists call this "projection".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Why are you anti-choice!?!
Why do you hate freedom so much!!!111
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Also
Nobody said that the records were stolen. There were simply not sold.
Should the government step in and force people to buy records? Or cars?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nobody here is saying that artists cannot choose to work with a label. They are simply pointing out that other methods of distributing music might provide better results for the artists. The labels don't like the fact that the artists now have alternatives, and are trying to get the internet DIY shut down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It's just that monopolies don't last forever. Because of the artificially high prices, alternatives always develop. It's simple economics. Monopolies always fight to maintain their monopoly. It never works -- in the long term.
In this case, alternatives to the past recording industry distribution and promotion monopoly.
Yes, it makes some people rich, and keeps some artists poor. So it's both. As I said, they screw both ends. The former screws consumers. The latter screws artists.
And who am I go to around talking about monopolies when I'm not getting paid by a monopoly? Anyone can be informed about how monopolies work. The recording industry isn't the first (and unfortunately probably won't be the last) monopoly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You *are* anti-choice.
An artist doesn't have to sign to a major label if they don't want to; they could sign to an indie or try to go DIY on the internet.
But you want to remove those choices and have them only work the way *you* want them to. Why do you think *you* have the right to dictate that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
You personally; examples please.
No one forces you to buy their product.
In fact, if you have ripped off their product, are you not a massive hypocrite?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
wow. That's seriously messed up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly- no one forces an artist to sign to a label. It's their *choice*.
But you've decided you don't like that choice.
Why exactly do you think it's ok for you to decide things for other people?
Again, why are you anti-choice?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
it's not a protection problem, it's a product problem
you can't take the stuff that hollywood makes and put it on the internet and expect to earn what it earned on TV networks and theaters because the revenue online just isn't there.
this isn't because the internet won't work for distribution, but because the product that hollywood makes just costs too much to produce.
the business models are there. the distribution channels are there. it's the product that isn't there. the current cost structure just isn't sustainable.
a film that costs $100 million to make has to make $100 million just to break even. those numbers just aren't possible anymore.
all the protectionism in the world can't stop the relentless march of progress. the market has decided how it wants to consume media. it's time for the producers to change their products to match that change.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Once they release it, no. If I tell my friends a new joke I thought up, they absolutely have the right to go and tell it to other people, and I absolutely don't have the right to "control" how it spreads.
Believing otherwise is "seriously messed up".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
NO. It's the market that should decide. It should NOT be up to the artists, labels and legislators to force specific business models on the market, it should be up to the market to accept or reject business models.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But we will point out the obvious downsides to trying to stick with the old way of doing things. What someone does with that info is their choice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I make a car, sell it, I want to control who drives it and where.
I make a house, sell it, I want to control who lives in it.
I write a song, sell it, I want to control who listens to it, sings it.
Complete control over other people's property is messed up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A joke you made up is analogous to a movie that employed many people to make and cost millions?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
As Mike himself has stated many times, labels can be a very useful choice, provided the label understands the market and can bring added value to your work. What we object to here is police power being used to prop up business models via laws about imaginary property. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with labels, other than the fact that they are usually the worst offenders in this regard. Labels could be relevant without relying on copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you don't like copyright or intellectual property, go ask your elected representative to remove it from the law books.
I wish you the very best of luck with that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Who exactly would you suggest is supposed to enforce federal law besides the government?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Controlling the law isn't controlling reality. The illusion (delusion) of controlling politicians and the law doesn't mean you can control the tide.
Sure, those laws will have an effect. They'll manage to kill off some smart start-ups and throw some pirates in jail and alienate (sue) many of their customers. Maybe they'll even manage to break some of the foundations of the internet (and force it to adapt less breakable methods).
It won't last.
At some point, whether its in 2, 5, or 20 years, in order to hold on to their business models, they'll need some law that even our bought politicians will balk at. Maybe it will be jail time for downloaders. Maybe it will be to cut off diplomatic ties to a country that has created a data haven. Maybe it will be restrictions on speech that even the bought politician can see is truly a restriction. Or something else we can't quite imagine yet. But there is a limit.
Its not whether the legacy business model will survive, nor even how long they will survive - its whether the companies trying to survive will be able to make any semblance of a transition or will just collapse one day like Enron or Bear Stearns.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's like making an airplane without wings and then claiming the law of gravity should be suspended for you personally because you spent millions on developing said aircraft, and if it doesn't fly you won't recoup. So what?
It's not my responsibility to make your crappy business decision return a profit merely because you based your future revenue projections on the fairy tale of "complete cultural control". You don't have that, you won't have that, and any business model based on it is going to crash and burn like a plane without wings.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Google him and see how it worked out for him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
p.s. no, I don't work for nor do I like the RIAA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Copying is immoral!"
"No it's not, for reasons X, Y, and Z."
"Oh yeah? Well I can stop you from copying at the point of a gun!"
Maybe, but you can make people do a lot of things by threatening them with a gun. Does that prove the morality of an action?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, the people employed to make the movie are all paid for the work they did except those that invest in the success of the film...which is a risk (like any investment). Reap the rewards or eat the losses. If there are losses then somehow it is the fault of somebody else...not the dope who took the risk?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah why would you do that? If you actually make a physical product and sell it of course its not yours anymore. But if I make 1 art I can control that forever and my kids can send their kids to college with the monopoly rents, thats how the world works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Why shouldn't they? I don't understand why you people whine about this so much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FREEDOM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh that's right, you can't have art without an audience. Which is why the public should be treated like thieves in the night. This makes perfect sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
the content industry is more than welcome to maintain the status quo and go down in flames. i just don't want them to take my civil liberties with them.
they are perfectly free to waste their money on strategies that will not work, but they are not free to lobby government to waste tax payer dollars on ineffective protectionist policies that limit my free speech or my right to privacy.
Why are you trying to force everyone to work in the manner *you* think they should?
you are free to put yourself out of business. you are not free to put someone else out of business. i wouldn't stop you from killing yourself if that's what you wanted to do. i would stop you from hurting someone else.
IP maximal-ism, especially when it seeks protections from the government that infringe my rights, affects everyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They get to decide.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Seems like the successful artists are doing rather well."
Right, so that's a few hundred people from a group of industries that must have tens of thousands of artists trying to be successful. If getting onto Cribs is your definition of making it, then it looks like the odds of success are very tiny.
"Which one is it?
Artists aren't getting paid or they're getting paid too much?"
Both. Most get paid very little if at all, while a very few get a lot. That's the way the labels have worked for decades.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
No one here is buying it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
we know
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You fail at Hollywood accounting. ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except for the part where it isn't.
I'm sorry you have such hatred for artists and those that help them.
There will be no crashing and burning. Artists and labels aren't going away.
And one way or another, when this is all straightened out, you will be paying if you want to consume.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Barlow, labels and services
so they gave away music and made money selling t-shirts....never heard that idea before
and you use that as a point against him? Sounds like they understand it. Control the right to your work but do your best to provide people with the content for free and give them other ways to support your so you continue making content that they like.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Successful artist is successful.
That's a powerful argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can very easily do both, in any order that is required.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
BS. Why is it that the lawyers for Hurt Locker want to look at 25,000 bittorrenters and their information to sue them?
Enforcement := progress
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
And the Tenenbaum case has nothing to do with my statement. Did the court rule that the above statement is not true? Silly troll...strawmen are for kids.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think so. This issue wasn't even addressed for real until Obama took office. But you know that.
You people had a nice long run. Don't you think it's rather greedy to be complaining now because the law is finally being enforced?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
the days of making millions on a film are slowly coming to an end. the people who used to make millions and aren't should do something different. they're free to keep doing what they are doing, but it's really not a good idea.
people now distribute films for free and there is not a force on this earth that can stop it. that's a simple fact.
the answer is simple: stop making crappy films that costs millions to produce. the market won't buy them and you will lose money.
here are a few simple suggestions to stop losing money on films:
1) keep making crappy films, but drastically reduce your production costs
2) keep making films that cost millions, but drastically improve their quality.
3) stop making films entirely.
options 1 and 2 are kind of risky, but option 3 is guaranteed to work.
remember: winners never quit, quitters never win, people who never win and never quit are idiots.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's the labels and studios that are trying to make the world work the way THEY think it should. We're just trying to protect and encourage the alternatives before these assclowns get their way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I, personally, have:
-Lost money when software I legally bought and paid for stopped working because the company which made it was sued out of existence (321 Studios).
-Spent hours of my own personal time rebuilding and reimaging my own and others people's computer that have been messed up by various forms of DRM (mostly screwed up installs of SecureROM).
-Spent 2 hours recovering someone's iTunes library when their hard drive died because of Apple's agreement with the labels to not allow redownloading of already paid for tracks.
Those are specific examples I can point to that have personally happened to me. Not in that list are theoretical savings of time and money that I was never able to have because the labels/studios killed off (or discouraged from even existing) products and services that would have benefited me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Who exactly would you suggest is supposed to enforce federal law besides the government?"
All evidence that the enforcement of copyright law leads to success are extremely biased (IFPI, USTR 301 Report, etc)
Anyone wanting increased ex officio powers of government, who rely on raiding the homes of DJs (Link and Link), who make DRMed products (Just... Sony), who treat the end user like crap instead of learning what people want and supporting them and what they do legally with music, does not deserve anyone's money. So tell me, how exactly is raiding and enforcing copyright law down the throats of businesses going to help them succeed?
How about ASCAP enforcing copyright law to "get artists paid?" Do you really believe that's happening? I guess only paying the 200 top artists of the year, when they take 16% of the profits for themselves, from legal extortion is a great way to enforce copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What would an economist say?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed]
Where's your research along with the very fact that Clinton signed the DMCA in 1998, NOT when Obama took office?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Also
What the hell? You've just described Communism and don't realize how that can't be bad for society?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services
I've never heard of Grateful dead using DMCA takedowns on videos that fans did.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: it's not a protection problem, it's a product problem
FTFY :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
born this way?
Ultimately, they have decided that there are no major differences between an "idea" and a "chair", and the two should be treated as the same.
They literally told me that the only difference between a song and a chair is that you can make infinite copies of the song cheaply. Else, they are the same (property of an owner) and should be treated as such.
My view is that difference IS the point! My friends trivialize this amazing property of a song/idea/text and miss how this makes them fundamentally different from a physical, tangible good.
The disagreement is a fundamental differing view based on how an individual sees the world. Much like a faith based belief, it is nearly impossible to change someones mind once they start building their arguments/model around these assumptions. They simply have too much intellectual investment in their view to change it regardless of the data.
It's interesting because the argument will typically come back to: "An artist deserves to get paid", "How else will people make money?", or "We need to protect the little guy ... without a patent, what stops a big company from stealing from you?" .... it amazes me the cognitive dissonance in these statements, because it ignores all the data that disputes their belief. Like most, they choose to only look at the data that supports their position.
It's frustrating because what seems like pretty concrete evidence gets dismissed outright simply because it doesn't mesh with their belief on the topic.
So Mike, it's more like your trying to convert people to a new Religion than teaching them Geometry. Which is probably why logic and facts don't get you very far. You are literally turning their world upside down.
Knowing its a religious debate, how might you change your tactics?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It sucks but it's still true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And what about this:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Also
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Giving artists advice on how to stay relevant and continue to make money in the internet generation is "hate"? IP-trolls are all the same. "Change is hatred!"
Artists and labels aren't going away.
Agreed. I think that some labels are going away (the ones who can't adapt), but as Mike has frequently pointed out and as I have pointed out already in this very thread, there is still a role for labels in the music industry. Artists, of course, aren't going anywhere.
And one way or another, when this is all straightened out, you will be paying if you want to consume.
Most of my content is purchased, actually, but not because I have a moral duty to (I don't) or a legal duty to (I couldn't care less). I buy when it's most convenient to buy, and copy when it's most convenient to copy. If you want me to buy from you rather than copy from a tracker, cater to my desires as a consumer. Threatening me won't get me to buy your content, no matter what delusion allows you to pretend otherwise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No but if you want to legally obtain said product, such as a CD of an album which is controlled by a major label, you are forced to buy their product or go without.
"How have the major labels 'screwed you over'?
You personally; examples please."
Examples of how I have been screwed over by the labels:
I purchased a copy of Lily Allen's album "Alright Still" (on EMI) which I cannot listen due as every beat on that album is distorted due to excessively loud mastering. I cannot take it back as the CD itself is not faulty.
I purchased a copy of John Farnahm's album "Whispering Jack" 20th Anniversary remaster (Sony). It was mastered so loudly with excessive compression. I cannot listen to it. I cannot return it as the CD itself is not faulty.
I purchased a copy of Wes Carr's album "The Way The World Looks" (Sony). See "Whispering Jack". I purchased Michael Jackson's "Bad" remaster (Sony). See "Whispering Jack". I purchased Abba's "Arrival" remaster (Universal). See "Whispering Jack".
I purchased a new LP copy of "Please Please Me" by The Beatles (EMI). It had a groove lock on the second song upon first playing. The record was faulty. However, I could not return it as the labels apparently don't accept returns on records.
My roommate, a huge fan of Delta Goodrem, purchased her latest album in 2007 only to find that if he downloaded the album (not song by song but the whole album) he would have gotten an extra song at iTunes and a different extra song at BigPond Music. He spent $25 only to find that he didn't even get the same number of songs as those who paid less to get a crappy download.
I purchased a region 1 DVD of "The Golden Girls" season 4. I could not make a backup copy due to the copy protection employed on it. That was OK at first but two months later the second DVD in the set stopped working. Inspecting it for scratches, I fond none.
I purchased a region 4 DVD of "The Golden Girls" season 5, made by a different company to season 4 thus hoping to avoid the above scenario. My player refused to play it full stop. All three discs, no go. Returning it to the shop, they would not take it because their DVD player played it with no problem. Every other DVD I owned still worked on my player. Just not "The Golden Girls" season 5. Research revealed they had "enhanced" the copy protection.
So now if I want an older album on CD, I track down a second hand copy on eBay that was mastered prior to 1995. If I want a DVD, I rent it out first. If I want a new album on CD, I borrow it from my local library first. I'm glad I did as one album I borrowed out had sound quality so badly compressed and distorted, even my roommate was going "OH MY GOD! TURN THIS OFF! MY EARS ARE KILLING ME!" and this was an artist he LIKED!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That's because IP maximists are interested in censoring free speech as much as they can. and they also want to censor free speech on the Internet too, just like they try to do it here (and just like they've managed to accomplish this everywhere outside the Internet, ie: over broadcasting spectra and cableco television, communication channels that don't mention the many bad things about IP laws but only parrot pro-IP propaganda, thanks to the govt imposed monopolies that keep non-monopolists out).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
How dare I talk about it when I'm not paid by a monopolist to be their mouthpiece!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
What if it's being affected by something you refuse to see and "piracy" is just a convenient excuse.
I wish we could wipe out all piracy. Then you'd have to face reality. I don't want your content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am not in favor of removing anyone's choice.
As for the labels, they are doing a fine job of removing themselves. I'm not doing it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
See? Decisions! The market WILL help you decide what you SHOULD do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You call me anti choice, yet I'm not trying to take away anyone's choice.
You won't quite anything. It's clear. You just change your name calling to a new form.
There is no fatal flaw in my thinking. I'm not anti choice. So how can I have an anti choice flaw?
Yet you'll keep saying I'm anti choice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I just don't see it.
I just don't get it.
There has been a monopoly on music distribution for decades.
Copyright is a government granted monopoly.
The fact that you don't like the alternative business models, or that artists can choose them, is because you want monopolists to maintain their monopoly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: it's not a protection problem, it's a product problem
Just ask those who's royalty payments are tied to the profit.
Hollywood accounting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So it's a copy of a song and not a chair - why should you be able to stop me from doing anything I want to do with it? Because you are an artist and you're "special", but the chairmaker isn't?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Barlow, labels and services
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
What if you came up with some examples?
I don't want your content.
Then you have nothing to worry about. Why are you so angry then?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Artists want to sign with them, and people want to buy their releases.
They just don't like people taking their creations without paying. Hardly anything wrong with wanting to stop that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Absolutely they will.
Look at a list to the ten biggest companies of 100 years ago.
How many of them even exist now?
How many have survived without a radical change in their main business?
Companies are by their nature short lived (unless they are bell foundries). All companies will die - most of them fairly soon - no special analysis is needed for that point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can't blame the labels for that - it was your own stupid fault
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes - how long did it take to make up the words of "Happy Birthday" - pretty much less than what a joke takes - yet that is protected by the same law - and has made millions.
You clearly don't understand the difference between a qualitative and a quantitative difference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The major labels aren't responsible for a DVD-copying software company being sued.
The major labels have nothing to do with a game manufacturer protecting their product.
The major labels aren't responsible for someone's hard drive dying. As far as downloading again, you bought one copy, why do you expect infinite copies? Why do you want to shift the burden to Apple because of *your* hardware problems?
These are the type of weak rebuttals that have become the norm for you self-entitled types.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually he's arguing "might is right"!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
DRM, Rootkits, attempts to remake the same dollar on various formats over and over...
"Artists want to sign with them, and people want to buy their releases."
Please stop talking for all artists. You will appear uninformed
"They just don't like people taking their creations without paying. Hardly anything wrong with wanting to stop that."
Please stop talking for artists.
You will appear uninformed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If a store doesn't take returns, you need to shop elsewhere.
And blaming the majors because his roommate didn't buy on itunes, thus missing a bonus track?
That's pathetic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In your frenzy to stop unauthorized copies, you are buying laws that conflict with the privacy, speech and property rights of everyone and you are bringing internet surveillance and censorship through the backdoor.
You are trying to stifle a multi-trillion technology to sustain your ancient copy-selling business -- how long can that go on?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Some well-known artists really do have magnificent homes and a lot of money and "things", but that's only a small segment of artists shown on Cribs, not even of artists in general. (musicians, we should say. We're not all "artists").
It seems a lot of people don't realize that famous rock stars and the like don't even own their own homes. Most of the nice stuff you see them with is actually owned by their label. When sales dry up, the first 'perk' the labels take back is the lifestyle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lily bashing time :)
I wouldn't be able to listen to it period!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What a charming person you must be in real life. Loved by so many, I'm sure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am however, tired of all the maximists who wrongly call themselves free marketers while supporting a monopoly, and justify their position with the marxian value of labor while slamming anyone who isn't for copyright lasting forever as "communist"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I agree, except *we* are not trying to put anyone out of business. People that take a product without paying, *are*.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why are you so against this choice?
Why are you anti-choice?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, they are. Link
"The major labels have nothing to do with a game manufacturer protecting their product."
Again with being obtuse? Why not follow what he's saying instead of your incredibly weak link to major labels.
He's talking about how he had to uninstall and reinstall games with Securom, which probably stopped him from getting games with that publisher in the future. On top of that, he had to fix other people's computers because oh hey, they decided they wanted to "protect their property"
Yeah, protect their property but lose a customer to BS. Securom is still controversial, with a number of people not paying for the game. Especially when a great alternative or two exists.
" As far as downloading again, you bought one copy, why do you expect infinite copies? Why do you want to shift the burden to Apple because of *your* hardware problems?"
You seem to be ignorant of a few issues here. Apple's music format used to be proprietary. Using the AAC format, it could ONLY be used on Apple's iPod. Since he only had one license Apple wouldn't allow him to reupload what he bought.
Now, if you could only sit down on your chair 5 times before it disappeared, are you telling me you wouldn't find a way to get a chair that is more permanent? There's legal and illegal ways to do it. Figure that one out for yourself.
(Speaking of which, if you only license music from Apple iTunes, instead of selling music, there's a problem with how iTunes works)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, when all this is straightened out, consumers will not be paying for content (except movie theaters). The record labels will have to compete with 5 million artists and bands. Making their slice of the pie much smaller, and their profit margins will all but disappear.
YouTube, free online radio and streaming, promotional music, etc, all say you are wrong in your assumption that people will pay to consume. And like any good feedback loop, removing any of these free choices removes your ability to promote new artists, and allows people to come in and replace you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not Friday yet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's very simple.
But feel free to keep spreading nonsense about an industry you know nothing about if it makes you feel better about ripping off artists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is easily one of the stupidest lies I've ever seen on this site, and I've seen a ton.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Also
Thanks for clearing that up for us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why do you keep changing the nature of discussion?
When will you stop asking vague questions in an attempt to avoid providing a clear basis for any of your claims?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right now, the RIAA is pushing for oversight over online music lockers, even though their content is not the only music out there. I have a music locker full of creative commons licensed music that I'm free to distribute without fear of a lawsuit, but just because the RIAA thinks that their content is the reason the internet is so popular these days and they are the source of music without which music would not exist, they want to cripple what I can do with that service and they want to be able to snoop into what I'm listening to as if they have a right.
The entertainment companies think more legislation will just ensure their profits but they don't seem to either realize or care that they're setting up an authoritarian government structure that can be used for suppressing human rights. They want deep packet sniffing to root out copyright infringement online, but oppressive governments will use the same thing to suppress insurrection and to arrest, torture, and/or kill dissidents. This shit matters. Corporate profits for companies that willingly use government corruption for the sake of their wealthy shareholders do not matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
The dinosaurs might have stood up and shouted at their environment demanding it not get hot or cold or whatever it was that killed them off, but nature didn't care. It changed anyway. They had a good run, those dinos did. Some hundreds of millions of years. Some of them adapted, which is why we have birds. The ones that didn't we go see in museums.
Similarly, customers don't care what a business stands up and shouts about, if their preferences have changed, they've changed. The business can adapt and survive, or it can relegate itself to being a relic in a museum somewhere.
I can hear your rebuttal now. "Customers are only happy if businesses give everything away for free" or some other nonsensical drivel. I'm going to buy a harddrive soon. Sure it'd make me ecstatic to get it free. But I'm also perfectly happy to spend a fair amount of money on it. It's called a fair exchange. I'm willing to give up X amount of money for a harddrive. Newegg is willing to give up a harddrive for a Y amount of money. So long as X >= Y, we can both be happy. Obviously the lower the price, the happier I'll be, and the higher the price the happier Newegg will be, but just because you could have been happier, doesn't mean you aren't happy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mtv_cribs#Controversy
You sir, are not very good at "internet".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you don't like it, ask your elected representative to get copyright off the books.
I wish you the very best of luck with that.
The cyberlockers? They are cesspools of piracy and everyone knows it.
Please don't play dumb.
If the cyber-lockers want to stay in business, they need to take action and get legal.
If they can't, tough.
Adapt or die, as you would say.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your statement, "famous rock stars and the like don't even own their own homes. Most of the nice stuff you see them with is actually owned by their label", is complete BS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
of course it does, that's why you should reduce costs.
a film that makes $500,000 in it's first week is a miserable failure at the box office.
an independent web series making $50,000 is roaring success.
the problem is that the box office way is not sustainable in its present form and the web series is now and will most likely always be.
it's true that a billion dollars is cooler than a million dollars, but a 200% return on an investment is even cooler.
also, it's way easier to make (and to recover from the loss of) $50,000 than it is to make (and to recover from the loss of) $500,000.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We like artists. We don't like the entertainment companies.
You keep acting like the artists can't create or be successful without the companies. This simply isn't true anymore. If the companies died tomorrow, artists would still make music. We might be bereft of the fake stars from shows like American Idol (good riddance), but true artists would still make music and still make money without the labels.
Nobody hates the artists here (except maybe the ones who have blindly bought the lies sold to them by the industry that exploits their talents for corporate profits).
Anyone who thinks that artists can't survive without the companies and lawyers to protect (exploit) them doesn't understand what art and culture are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
you make a product that costs a lot of money to produce but is effortless to take without paying for, and there is no fesible way to prevent that taking.
that's the very definition of an unsustainable product.
you are free to keep making it for others to take, but that's really not a good idea. a better idea would be to read the writing on the wall and stop making that product.
if you want to keep making something, make a different one that uses the fact that it will be taken and given away to its advantage. otherwise, just stop all together.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is already a system for enforcement in place. They want new ones. New horrible overreaching entirely unworkable and completely useless ones. They actually believe that if they are given the entire resources of the US (and others) government, they can win this war on piracy! Just like we won the war on drugs! Except the property is intangible and near impossible to track. Hmm..
If you don't like it, ask your elected representative to get copyright off the books.
I've tried that. I just get a form letter back. If I ever have a few spare million dollars to hire lobbiest, you can bet I'll do just that.
Please don't play dumb.
Why not? Don't you want someone to play with?
Adapt or die, as you would say.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!111! Repeating back thing that we say is not the same thing as understanding them. (Ha ha ha!!! I'm still laughing at this one!!! :D )
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
clearly he is. if chair makers were so bloody special they would have a decent lobby.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyone who has a philosophical disagreement with IP law is an unlovable troglodyte? Your "arguments" get more pathetic with every iteration.
(And based on the tone of your responses in this thread, I think I'll just let everyone else be the judge of whether or not they'd rather have me around or you.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Captain obvious is that you?
What do you think people are doing? Not only have you not presented any arguments that back up what you say, you absolutely refuse to do so, instead preferring to make obvious statements of fact that have no bearing on discussions of actual practicality, morality or really anything else.
When you can present an argument that morally justifies why copyright should last after an authors death, why piracy justifies spying and censorship with little to no oversight, or even present one that directly refutes John Perry Barlow in this very article (an artist on whose behalf you apparently speak) feel free to make one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I would never take a product without paying for it. I might copy a configuration of bits from another person who volunteered them up for copying, however.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: it's not a protection problem, it's a product problem
Just ask those who's royalty payments are tied to the profit.
increased competition will reign in a lot of those bad practices.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services
Yes. And in order to do so they had to maintain a monopoly over selling T-shirts with their trademarked and/or copyrighted images. Which they sold for a relatively high price, in order to make up for the fact that they (sort of, a little) gave away (some) music.
The Dead _always_ made money on intellectual property - they just did so by incorporating it into merchandise. If they hadn't had this "monopoly," fans would have bought "bootleg" T-shirts.
So Barlow was complicit in limiting your freedom to sell T-shirts with dancing bears on them! But my real point was that Barlow's own bandmates don't agree with him. That's pretty damning.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not sure where you get this "anti-choice" thing from. I don't see anyone clamoring to outlaw labels, or prevent (through force) artists from signing up with labels.
Artists are free to pursue whatever boneheaded strategy they want. If they go out of business because they didn't make the right decision, that's not "anti-choice", that's "reality".
You could tell me that your new business venture involves digging holes in your backyard and then filling them back in, and I could tell you why that's probably a failure of a business model and why I would suggest you put your hole-digging abilities to a more profitable use, but it would be nonsensical to claim that my criticisms of your approach made me "anti-choice".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And the Grateful Dead enforced their rights to intellectual property. If you sold a T-shirt with their intellectual property on it, without permission, they would shut you down. I don't know if Barlow participated in this revenue stream, since he was just a songwriter, but he sure didn't object.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services
Well, the Dead got start-up funding from Owsley Stanley, a major LSD dealer. Labels are usually a better source of seed money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unfortunately they don't like actually having to police their content because that effects their bottom line. They want other companies (ISPs, google, ect) to do it for them. They also don't want any oversight on their accusations. And who the hell cares if these new laws end up hampering free speech or negatively effecting musicians and artists who do not use the dinosaur businesses.
If you don't like it, ask your elected representative to get copyright off the books. I would recommend starting a non-profit and sinking millions in funding into it for questionable studies and out right lying, I mean lobbying.
I wish you the very best of luck with that.
The cyberlockers? They are cesspools of piracy and everyone knows it. So because something has illegitimate uses we should over regulate it so it can't be used for legitimate purposes as well. Like the VCR or blank cds, if we had stopped those as we planned no one would know the difference.
Please don't play dumb. That is my job.
If the dinosaur music companies want to stay in business, they need to take action and get to innovating.
If they can't, they can spend millions of dollars lying to the government to make sure their outdated business model stays insanely profitable despite market demand and the will of consumers.
Adapt or create laws to stifle speech and inovation, as you would say."
Fixed a few grammar things for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services
If anyone cares, Stanley's nickname - "the Bear" - seems to be the origin of the dancing bear graphic. Which is trademarked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pot meet kettle.
Pot: "Hey you're black."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Have you noticed that you're failing miserably and have no chance of ever succeeding?
Have you noticed that the reason you're ignored is that you are just as greedy as the people you are accusing of being greedy? And that's why no one takes you seriously and laughs at you behind your back?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No but they are responsible for not allowing him to redownload his already purchased music. Why shouldn't he be able to expect a new copy if something goes wrong with the one he paid for? Its not like it costs anything for the new copy, except a little bandwidth. Especially since they are trying as hard as possible to keep people from making copies of their music with DRM and shutting down cyberlockers. There is no "burden" to apple to allow him to have what he already bought without having to buy it again.
Hard drives fail, since you don't want us to be able to make copies wouldn't it make sense to allow us to redownload?
Why do you expect him to keep paying over and over again for the same thing? Sounds like typical self-entitled douche response who thinks he should keep getting paid for the same thing by the same customer.
Why do you expect that you can give a customer a horrible experience and not have him seek alternative ways of getting what he wants without all the hassle and the risk of his product literally disappearing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
yes they would. inifinity! stapmed it! quitsies! anti-quitsies! no startsies!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
= Yeah I watch cribs all the time and can't wait till people are forced to buy my music and I can get a house like that. Lord knows its the only reason I started "creating."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your definition of "anti-choice" is rather unique.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is that why you completely changed the topic of discussion to plain insults?
Why are you so against against artists like John Perry Barlow who see copyright as having gone too far?
Why are you against personal privacy? Why do you find censorship so agreeable because a college student downloaded Avatar?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services
Sort of, some? Now who is playing ignorant. The dead released 20ish studio albums, including their best ofs. Every dead show ever was recorded and released for free. Before Jerry died the dead had performed roughly 2300 shows. So twenty compared to 2300 is not some/sort of, a little. Its over 100 times more free music than studio albums.
If the internet had been around in the 70's I guarantee there would be a lossless digital copy of every concert ever. It would look like this: http://www.owlandbear.com/wilco-archive/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nobody has said differently, not even the person you're replying to. Artists can create what they want, choose to work with who they want, and release their content how they want.
Telling someone that their particular method of accomplishing any of the above might not be the ideal method is not "anti-choice". You're pushing a total strawman.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services
They were pretty damn lax on the bootleg shirts too. I have a couple fan made ones I bought at shows still. They are falling to pieces now because they were not the highest quality but they were cool looking and you could buy them about 10 feet from the official merch tables.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services
So are you saying if they had got their start up money from a label the current IP laws wouldn't have helped them make money? I guess I can see where you are coming from if they had label funding they wouldn't have been able to let people tape their shows and encourage trading. They wouldn't have been able to focus so much on providing fans what they want cause the labels tend to restrict that stuff.
So I think I get it, for a band to succeed they need to think outside the box and seek funding from someone other than the major labels, but if a major label band wants to make money they have to make sure the label has ridiculously rigid control of their IP so they can make money despite pissing off their fan base and refusing to adapt. Got it, thanks for clearing that up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Have you noticed that you're failing miserably and have no chance of ever succeeding?
Have you noticed that the reason you're ignored is that you are just as greedy as the people you are accusing of being greedy? And that's why no one takes you seriously and laughs at you behind your back?"
you are just full of irony today arnt you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But they don't have the right to corrupt democratic processes or pay for legislation. They don't have the right to subvert human rights for their profit motive. This isn't about corporations getting paid. This is about human beings having their rights suppressed. I'm not talking about copyright violation. I'm talking about the laws that these companies are pushing for (or have already gotten passed) that undermine the free speech of political dissidents and activists. I'm talking about IP laws that let people die because the pharmaceutical companies want poor people to pay money they don't have for life-saving medication. You keep spouting off about piracy and you're just arguing for rich people to get richer. You haven't addressed the human rights issues at all. If you ignore them, they'll just go away, right?
"If you don't like it, ask your elected representative to get copyright off the books."
Ah, the refuge of the entrenched status quo lover. If my elected representative actually represented me, that might be an effective course of action. Of course you'd disingenuously say, "good luck." You know that the system is so corrupt and so heavily influenced by the suits at the companies that no grassroots campaigns or efforts are going to overcome all the money in campaign contributions, lobbying, and the revolving door. Give me a real solution for changing a corrupt system that doesn't involve violence and you'll be heralded as the next political genius of our time.
"The cyberlockers? They are cesspools of piracy and everyone knows it.
Please don't play dumb."
Argumentum ad populum
"If the cyber-lockers want to stay in business, they need to take action and get legal."
Are bus station lockers illegal? I can store a murder weapon or stolen property in a bus station locker.
How a customer makes use of a tool or a service does not make the tool or the service illegal. The music lockers are already legal. They don't need to do anything.
"If they can't, tough.
Adapt or die, as you would say."
The music locker services did adapt. They created a business model and provided services that were in demand from customers. It's the music companies that have failed to adapt. Why didn't they innovate online music in the early 2000's? Why aren't they creating their own music locker services where they can make sure the content is legal? They can't because they can't adapt. They can't give the consumers what they want. They are stuck with their heads up their asses and back in the 20th Century and want the golden days of manipulated high prices on albums full of filler content and physical media and payola schemes.
But what is worse is that, as I have said and you have not addressed, they're fucking over the people who want nothing to do with them. They're screwing over our political system with their twisted laws and pretending it only affects their bottom line rather than people's lives. If you can't address this issue and are only going to spout more about piracy, don't bother. We've heard your "but... but... piracy" arguments before.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I can only thank his noodly goodness that they cannot control reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services
>>>Of they had label funding they wouldn't have been able to let people tape their shows
That's simply untrue. Both Warner and Arista signed the Dead knowing about their taping policy. And plenty of other major label bands allow taping: Phish, Dave Matthews Band, and I think (anyone know for sure?) Wilco, Robert Randolph Band, the Black Keys, and - interestingly enough - Metallica.
There are many sources of funding. But a major label was the one *the Dead chose* - first in 1970, then in the mid-'70s when they signed to Arista, and then a few years ago when they signed a multi-rights deal with Warner. That was *their* choice. I don't know if was a good choice, but they must have thought so because they kept doing it.
And that's what I'm saying: Barlow hates major labels but the band he was in doesn't. They seem to have no use for his advice. I think this is interesting. Doesn't anyone else?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But enough of this thread I would love to see you address Mr. Wilson's remarks under "Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
1/10.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yes. But the Dead were not shy about suing companies that ripped off their intellectual property for T-shirts. So they might have sued companies that used their music.
>>>I am aware of a few bands releasing albums with Dead covers on them with no licenses.
You don't need a license to record a cover - you just need to pay a mechanical royalty.
>>>I would love to see you address Mr. Wilson's remarks under "Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not a copyright maximalist, but it would take more time than I have to explain my views. My point is that Barlow's own bandmates don't trust him, and I think that's interesting.
In addition, Barlow often compares pirates to "electronic Hezbollah." If I were one, I'd be offended by this. Since I'm not, I just think it's dumb.
To be clear, there are some copyright critics whose views I respect. Barlow is not one of them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mastering is done (or contracted) by the labels. You cannot make your own copy from the masters (the labels own the only copies), therefore you are dependent upon the labels to assure the quality of the recordings. It is the labels' fault if it is done wrong. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous at best.
Stores will not take returns because the labels won't reimburse them. Therefore no stores accept returns. There is no 'elsewhere' that you speak of.
If a person is forced to buy a package of songs three times in order to get *all* of the songs he/she wants instead of having the ability to purchase them individually that is (again) the fault of the (only) supplier (the major labels). Who else would you blame?
Fail. Fail. Fail.
Care to try again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Artists are not going away, labels are.
Half right. Your average is going up!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services
I think you are making quite a stretch. There is quite a difference in the world, especially as it pertains to recording and selling music, since the 1970s. A major label was the only way to get that kind of exposure in the 70s today it certainly isnt. Also physical media was the only way distribute music in the 70s it is not anymore.
I would say there is a good chance the Dead and Barlow would not have signed with major labels if they were coming up right now, but thats a silly argument because it is of course unprovable.
What you can say is Barlow is man that was happy to use the major labels when they were a necessary part of success but he has seen the changes in the market and watch the industry refuse to change with it. He recognizes that the way they are fighting the changes in the market have a great possibility to stifle innovation, creativity and technological advancement. He realizes that the industry has for a long time made its money off the content created by others because it was the only way for those creators to spread their content globally. The industry is no longer the only way to to produce your content on a global scale anymore. Rather than accept this and adapt they try to force the world to revolve around the way they used to make giant sums of money 2-3 decades ago.
Of course I am projecting myself onto him but my point remains that the actions of his band 20-30 years ago does not mean they wouldn't share his viewpoint today.
Also in my last comment I mentioned I would like to see you respond to Mr. Wilson. I know realize, mostly because of your ability to express a well thought out point of view, retract a statement that may have been misconstured, and discuss without insulting people or dodging the issue at hand, that I had you confused with another AC. I am sorry but your snowflakes appear very similar to me. I reiterate that I am sorry because I would be greatly offended if I was mistaken for that guy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services
Im sure that the Dead has a better contract with Warner than most bands. The Dead have that fanbase and back catalog to bargain with that few others do.
I will concede that he certainly has the ties and probably the money to start his own anti-label label and it is a possibility that people he once worked closely with don't like/agree with him.
Does anyone remember the address for the website that was nothing but artist's response to being asked "how do you feel about piracy"? There was a quote I wanted to use but couldn't find the site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
More insightful than anything you've come up so far. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Straightened out like in the last 10 years or so? Funny how delusional you shilltards are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Miserably.
But keep up the good work, you're very entertaining.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services
http://pirateverbatim.com
awesome site, interesting to see all the opposing viewpoints.
Here is the quote I love, and from an older artist. (it seems the longer you have been in the business the more likely it is you hate piracy, at least based on the responses on this site, although there are definitely still some who get it)
Mick Jagger:
It’s all changed in the last couple of years. . . I am quite relaxed about it. But, you know, it is a massive change and it does alter the fact that people don’t make as much money out of records. But I have a take on that – people only made money out of records for a very, very small time. When The Rolling Stones started out, we didn’t make any money out of records because record companies wouldn’t pay you! They didn’t pay anyone! Then, there was a small period from 1970 to 1997, where people did get paid, and they got paid very handsomely and everyone made money. But now that period has gone. So if you look at the history of recorded music from 1900 to now, there was a 25 year period where artists did very well, but the rest of the time they didn’t.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"It’s the artists that are the last ones to get paid and we get paid the least of anybody in the chain. Our last record sold maybe 800,000 copies – we didn’t make any money. None. Not one penny from record sales."
Let see thats at least $8,000,000 for the label and 0 for the artist. Sounds a little like indentured servitude to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You asked for personal examples. I supplied them. You have been asked many times for specific evidence or examples supporting your views, yet never, not once have supplied any. If I'm wrong, please direct me to those posts. Put up, or shut up.
The major labels aren't responsible for a DVD-copying software company being sued.
What law did MGM use to sue 321 Studios out of existence? The DMCA - specifically the anti-circumvention part. Who was the driving force behind that law in the 90s? The music labels.
Besides, the major labels, movie studios and game studios are all effectively the same monster. They have the same mindset, their execs all play musical chairs, they all lobby for the same things and are part of same and similar trade groups.
The major labels have nothing to do with a game manufacturer protecting their product.
Again, same mindset. The belief that in order to "protect IP" they need to (many times secretively) install software specifically designed to break functions of a computer. Who else does this? It couldn't be Sony, they would never install a rootkit, would they?
As far as downloading again, you bought one copy, why do you expect infinite copies? Why do you want to shift the burden to Apple because of *your* hardware problems?
Was actually my girlfriend's roommate's drive, but that's immaterial. Shift the burden? What burden? So Apple doesn't have a database of what users buy which tracks? They certainly had to have authentication servers with those lists when this happened, back in the AAC days. I expect infinite copies because that's what the internet allows at near zero cost. No extra effort and no extra cost to provide an excellent service for users stopped because of the label's fear. That's the whole point.
Mostly these personal examples are weak because I learned very early on not to pay money or waste time with broken products. Other people aren't so lucky. What happened to customers who bought products using Microsoft's "PlaysForSure" tech? They got screwed. Walmart's online music store? Screwed. I can't keep track of how many music stores and services that require authentication to tracks at certain points have failed. Rhapsody and Napster if they haven't failed yet, will. Users will be screwed. That's just music. Blu-ray players that are getting bricked or newer movies not playing on them? Users got screwed. All those Sony PSN users who couldn't even play single player or activate parts of their game when the network was down? Screwed. Dragon Age Origin players at launch? Screwed. blah. Screwed. blah blah. Screwed. blah. Screwed.
All for imaginary property.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services
But that's the thing: The Dead signed a multi-rights deal with Warner Music in *2006*
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/10/business/media/10rhino.html
They signed a very different deal than a new band would, but they seem to value what Warner can do for them. They have rights and they want to monetize them. They happen to believe that the best way to monetize some rights is to give away others, but that's just a question of execution.
You can think copyright has gone too far and still think Barlow is nuts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Also
Second, it's as if you're basically wanting the government to supply everyone with a shoe making job, even if they don't need it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And of course, since you know you have no leg to stand on, you had to quote out of context. Way to go scumbag.
"I think with iTunes more and more people actually spend a buck. I do it every day. It’s a buck. Please, just give us a buck! I don’t agree with (file sharing). I do think that it’s wrong. I did this work and I deserve to get paid for it. There was a time when I would never have said that. What people have got to remember is it’s really fun to take down The Man but The Man will always be there. It’s the artists that are the last ones to get paid and we get paid the least of anybody in the chain. Our last record (Gutterflower) sold maybe 800,000 copies – we didn’t make any money. None. None. Not one penny from record sales. Imagine if we weren’t able to go out and tour and make money on tour. What would we have done? We would have had a gold record and go out and get jobs."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So?
That's life, junior.
WTF is your damage? Grow up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So yea, get stuffed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Also
Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: born this way?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Paypal me at: BlowMeYouMoronicFreetard@techdirtispiracyapologism.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Also
It's really funny how you believe the world hasn't changed in 235 years of legislature. Especially when there's civil rights issues that directly disagree with your supposed protections by law.
So tell me, bucko, how did the 3/5ths compromise work? Better yet, how about the Emancipation Proclamation and what it did to the old agricultural society?
Great example of law protecting the old ways of doing business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Barlow, labels and services
I would suggest looking at some of the newer bands and how they've exposed themselves.
OKGo comes to mind and how they battle EMI in regards to their expression.
Other performers on either Jamendo/Magnatune/DMusic might be able to compare to Grateful Dead in disregarding copyright, but perhaps signing on a label for certain aspects, such as CD production (which labels are good at)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Just a thought, have you seen how many licenses you need under copyright law?
This is music licensing
I don't want to get into movie licensing, which adds about two more dimensions, such as actor royalty payouts and movie sampling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Also
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: born this way?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
EMI was founded in 1931.
Universal was founded in 1912.
Warner Brothers was founded in 1904.
107 years ago.
Wanna try again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unusual to be founded and be biggest at same time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Also
if you could make millions of copies of a car, at zero cost, and the practice was so wide-spread that there was no way to prevent it from happening, then everyone would already have cars and there would be no reason for a business to try and sell them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Also
That there's been major changes to US law in 235 years?
How about major changes to business in the last 235 years?
You're not even trying. The artists are finding their own success despite copyright laws. You should find a better argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am an artist, but I don't make my living off of selling my works. I have a salaried job creating multimedia objects.
But that's irrelevant. You don't have to be an artist to be able to comment. Consumers have a dog in this fight. I'd rather pay an artist directly for their work than pay some middleman an inflated cost just because the middleman convinced the artist that he was necessary. This paradigm is no longer true in the 21st Century.
I do pay artists directly. Check out jamendo.com. This is the source of all my music locker content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the record of the Beatles was faulty at time of sale and you can establish that then the Merchant, and not EMI, has to give you the choice of replacement, repair or refund.. and they then take it up themselves with EMI thats a statutory warranty and law for the whole of Australia. All you need to prove that it was originally faulty is show them the record and get tehm to play it. If it doesn't work, skips, or anything else that disrupts the listening, and there is no scratch, then you are able to obtain one of the the 3R's above. If any problems, again contact Dept of Fair Trading
As for the DVD's.. It is NOT unlawfal within Australia to use a circumvention device on the DVD to remove that copy protection to backup the DVD as long as you are using it for private backup purposes. This does not matter what Region the DVD is for since Region coding is not allowed for the purposes of copy protection under Australian law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Though if you had worked in an Australian Store, and knowingly refused to honour returns, refunds, or repairs of originally faulty merchandise, and that is whether the product comes with a manufacturers warranty or not (we have statutory warranty in Australia for minimum 1yr... and lifetime of goods for ALL products) there is not only a fine of up to $10mill dollars (depending on size of company) but also criminal sanctions available towards yourself as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only monopoly on it is held by governments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Who is their boss?
[ link to this | view in thread ]